I'm surprised how many women love mountains, considering the stereotype of them not taking any risk and only enjoying Instagram and Netflix

sometimes When i feel sad i go out for a walk, and i go south, there is a stream nearby, i usually stop there to comtemplate it for a while

As for me, it's the Osprey Nebula

Is off-grid living a wealthy person's hobby? I can't live in an off-grid cabin full time because the code doesn't allow that, and I also would need a primary residential address. The only way to make it work off-grid is if you already have a real home.

Looking for a sidearm for solo backpacking. Shotgun stays home—too heavy. Been relying on blades but want something better for defense (animals or creeps).

Would prefer something not too bulky, and manageable recoil-wise (small hands, not a big person). Reliable and woods-worthy.
Revolver or semi, open to either.

What’s /out/ carrying?

are rice picker hats unironically the strat for excessively hot and sunny excursions??
(I'm white btw)

>walking along a trail minding my own business
>Suddenly 5 pic related fly out of the brush
Wtf? If you just stayed still everything would have been fine but you have to try and give me a heart attack.
Fuck you, im hunting these fuckers now.

What's the biggest threat when you're /out/? A wild animal or a homeless tweaker?

The edge of morality
A case of transforming nature

A common slogan regarding evolution is “evolution doesn’t stop at the neck.” The basic idea is that the same evolutionary forces that work on our bodies—determining our height, method of reproduction, and so on—also work on our brains. Our minds are not unfiltered Cartesian egos, unaffected by evolution, and the assumption that they are is a source of serious error.

But there’s a similar dogma when it comes to ethics that is as widespread as it is indefensible. This is roughly the notion that ethics stops at the edge of society—that ethics, in other words, has nothing to say about nature, and there are no values to be promoted in nature; all we should do, with respect to nature, is preserve it. This idea strikes me as clearly wrong!

When you tell people that you support modifying nature to reduce suffering—trying to get rid of predators that rip their victims limb from limb and of flies that lay eggs in the bodies of live animals, eating their way out from the inside—they act like you have grown another head. But I think the worthwhileness of modifying nature follows from every plausible ethical view.

We normally accept that it’s bad when animals suffer. We think there’s something noble about helping out an injured deer, but nothing comparably noble about helping out an injured plant. When, in the 1980s, surgery was performed on live dogs without any anesthetic, we correctly recognize that such a practice was ghastly and horrific. The reason it was horrific is that it’s bad to be in excruciating agony. The fact that huge numbers of dogs were in excruciating agony was a bad thing. Surely it can’t be that it’s only bad for dogs to suffer if humans are the culprit—this would imply that it’s wrong to treat horrible diseases dogs have, if treating the diseases causes them any suffering.

Title. Fiction or Non. Picrel fucked me up, I knew about the cannibalism but that was the least of it. Looking for more recs, /out/ related preferered but whatever you like or are currently reading is cool too.